"We the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, with so little, for so long, we are now qualified to do anything, with nothing" By Konstantin Josef Jireček, a Czech historian, diplomat and slavist.

President Salva Kiir Mayaardit: The Nelson Mandela of South Sudan?

Salva Kiir Mayaardit: The Joshua of South Sudan. Grab your copy at Amazon.com

Monday, September 9,
2019 (PW) — There is no reservation that
Nelson Mandela was a great leader, but how does President Kiir fair? More
often, we focus on the negative performance of leaders while forgetting 70%
plus of their largely positive actions. Consequently, we end up creating a leader
of our own imaginings rather than enabling a potentially great leader to
thrive. In this piece, I aim to pit President Kiir against a strong leader like
Nelson Mandela and determine if Kiir has the capacity to steer his nation with
the same power and purpose as the South African revolutionary. I hope that this
will help to identify areas of improvement for President Kiir and more
importantly, identify where his energy needs to be focused in order to rescue his
legacy. And so, the real question is, is it too late or still possible for Kiir
to become the Nelson Mandela of South Sudan? I offer my thoughts on the matter
below.

It costed Nelson Mandela his entire life, his family, friends, comrades
and often his patience to undertake what later became the greatest political legacy
of the modern era. In 1994, while in Kakuma refugee camp, members of SPLA/M
staged a large screen in a field in Kakuma for us to watch the inaugural of
Nelson Mandela elected as the first black President of South Africa. I did not
know who he was at the time but the admiration he elicited from our leaders compelled
me to find out more. I soon discovered he was an exemplary leader to those
fighting the freedom struggle in South Sudan before her independence. Hence, we
can compare the mighty Mandela to our own leader.

Before I proceed however, I wish to be clear that I am fully aware and
knowledgeable of the current status quo in South Sudan. We are all
aware that under President Kiir’s leadership, civil war has been waged and
sustained, corruption has been normalised, insecurity has been elevated, the voices
of citizens have been reduced to near zero, tribalism and nepotism are everyday
practice and more importantly, peace is being obstructed. As a result, poverty
is surging, hope is almost diminishing, and the country and all what Kiir
fought for, for so many years, is at a risk of being disintegrated or lost.

Having
said that we need not ignore Kiir’s contribution to South Sudan. President Kiir’s
legacy is enormously positive, starting as a young person in Anya Nya One’s
struggle for the freedom of South Sudan until he became the first President of
South Sudan. The following accounts are a brief recap of Kiir’s years of legacy:

Kiir
patriotic struggle stamped back to his time with Anya nya One, when he was a
young officer in the widely-known rebel movement fighting for the freedom of
South Sudan and the South Sudanese people. His outstanding contribution was
confirmed by General Joseph Lago, one of the leading figures in that struggle.

After the Addis
Ababa agreement of 1972 between Anya nya One and the Sudanese Government, Kiir
was integrated into the Sudan Army forces (SAF). As an Intelligence Officer, he
has saved many South Sudanese lives through his role.

When
SPLM/SPLA started in 1983, Kiir became one of the founding fathers. His commitment
and contribution to the moment for the period of 21 years of struggle is
unquestionable.

In 2003,
as second in command for SPLM/A, Kiir led the delegation which successfully
negotiated Machakos Protocal, the Declaration of Principles which he signed and
later cemented the foundation for the successful negotiation of the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement (CPA) which brought to an end 21 years of the North – South
war.

As President
of the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS) and the First Vice President of Sudan
following the tragic passing of Dr Garang, Kiir successfully maintained peace, kept
SPLM together and successfully succeeded Dr Garang.

In 2006,
as a strategy to increase bargaining power for the South Sudanese and to
maintain peace in South Sudan, Kiir led South-South dialogue which brought
together all South Sudanese fighting factions to work together under the Government
of Southern Sudan.

Referendum
of South Sudan- In the face of all odds, which included Khartoum sabotaging the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), Kiir out-manoeuvred Khartoum and
successfully delivered a Referendum which resulted in the independence of South
Sudan.

First
President of South Sudan- After a successful referendum, Kiir successfully
lobbied the international community for the referendum results to be
recognised. He then became the first President of the Republic of South Sudan
after South Sudan separated from Sudan.

In light
of these impressive contributions, what is preventing Kiir from becoming a
great leader? To answer this, let us consider the path of Nelson Mandela and compare
and contrast the two leaders:

For many
years, Nelson Mandela fought for the right and freedoms of his people, the
black South Africans. He stood firmly against the apartheid regime, a move
which had him imprisoned for over 27 years. As a result of his stoic commitment
to his mission, Nelson Mandela was unshaken by any threat. In brief, he sacrificed
his entire life for the people of South Africa. Like Mandela, Kiir unshakably
gave his entire life to fight for the freedom of South Sudanese people. For many
years, he stood against the Khartoum regime without looking back. Despite all
these challenges, Kiir has always remained loyal to his commitment. He never rebelled
throughout both struggles with Anya Nya One and SPLA/M. This deep patriotism that
Kiir demonstrates to his country and his people allows one to draw strong
comparisons between Nelson Mandela and Kiir.

Both Kiir
and Mandela became the first presidents in their respective countries after
they successfully freed their people. Although South Africa has remained one
united country and South Sudan seceded from Sudan, the outcomes won the approval
of their people respectively.

Both
leaders worked extremely hard during their struggles to unite their people
towards the same goal. Like Mandela, Kiir performed very well in this area. His
effort in keeping his people united reached optimum level in the South-South Dialogue,
which brought most South Sudanese fighting factions together under his
leadership as the leader of GoSS.

While the
two leaders more or less shared similar experiences during their struggle period,
a point of contention arises however, after they became presidents of their
respective countries. As we see below, there are little or no similarities in
their legacy after they made it to the office.

While in
the office, Mandela focused on promoting reconciliation among his people. His
decision to offer forgiveness for the apartheid regime that jailed him for 27
years, caught the entire world by surprise. For many, the actions of apartheid
were unwarrantable, but he opposed those views and chose to move forward. He did not halt there; he went further to
divorce his wife for causalities committed when he was in jail. This made it
clear that he was not in the office to favour anybody regardless of their association
with him. This exampling action caused many to check their actions against the
values they fought for or against. More so, the move could have also resulted
in minimising corruption and promoting good practices within government
institutions.

On the
other hand, when Kiir took office, he decided to base his presidency on trusting
his colleagues as a way of keeping everyone together. He delegated most of his
power to his deputy and his comrades. At first things seemed to be working well,
but things began to change not long into his presidency. Many believed Kiir’s leadership took a turn after
he displayed favour to his friends, comrades and relatives. For example, some
people were seen to be sidelined due to their close allegiance to Dr. Garang while
he was alive. Some unqualified relatives and friends gained power from Kiir’s
favour. Corruption and insecurity were the resulting outcomes.

During his
presidency, Mandela focused on promoting democracy, something he was denied himself
and something he fought so hard for. In demonstration of his commitment to
democracy, he promised to step down after one term in the office, and he ensured
this promise was upheld. This move set a strong foundation for democracy in
South Africa and may have prevented people from rebelling against him.

Kiir had
this same view of promoting democracy to the extent that he mentioned to some
of his comrades that he would not seek a second term in the office. However,
this was overshadowed by the fact that Kiir felt his leadership was being
undermined by his comrades who wanted his position by any means. The 2013 war emerged
as a result of in-fighting and so this became the new status quo.

The Mandela
Presidency also focused on uniting the African National Congress Party (ANC) and
making it the best party in the country. His effort has cemented the ANC foundation
to what it is today.

Kiir on
the other hand, was seen to have played a role in the Sudan People’s Liberation
Movement (SPLM) disintegration. Although many factors are to blame here, Kiir’s
role as the chairperson is vital and carries more weight in the direction taken
by the party. For example, his role in allowing members of other parties to
take on crucial decisions making positions in government without party consent
is believed to have played a negative role. His difference with other senior
members of the party has always played a role in the party’s disunity.

Mandela
also focused more on developmental initiatives during his presidency, including
education, women’s rights and the voice of children. This has also set apart Nelson from Kiir. To
date, Kiir has not taken any significant move towards developmental initiatives.
In fact, he is caught up in muddy waters in the civil war, trying to survive as
a leader, and more division among his comrades, his party and the entire
country.

We cannot
fully parallel Kiir with Nelson because as we have seen, there are some
circumstances that surrounded Kiir’s leadership that did not exist within
Mandela’s leadership. Kiir also relies on the excuse that his leadership has
been sabotaged by his comrades. Having said that, I cannot acquit him either, as
he is the president and should be in control. Thus, what I can do is to offer
some solutions, in my opinion, which could bring him close to becoming a truly great
leader like Mandela.

President
Kiir needs to personally overhaul his legacy because it seems to be disbursed
recklessly by others who never help build it. In fact, by people who might have
worked against it. Many of us are witnessing with disbelief how others are thoughtlessly
spending the great legacy that he has built over many years. We rarely hear any
positive attributes to this legacy from the same cohort. Anyone who seems to offer
positive advice to the President is in one way or another pushed away from him.
Consequently, he needs to personally decide how he wants his legacy written.

Like
Nelson Mandela, he also needs to unconditionally forgive all those who have
wronged him and asks for forgiveness from those he has offended. The power of
forgiveness is very strong, indeed there is something supernatural in genuine
forgiveness. It never fails anyone who acts with sincerity and also it frees
oneself from conflict. Kiir needs to free himself from being part of the
conflict with anybody because he is the President of all the South Sudanese.
This will help unite the country and promote the healing process. It takes a
brave heart and courageous leadership to say sorry and to openly repent of
one’s misdeeds.

Kiir needs
to unite the SPLM party. It is with the SPLM party that the genuine unity of
South Sudan lies. It is important that Kiir takes a genuine leadership role in
creating conversations around reconciliation and how the party can come
together. The priority focus needs to be given to all the silent members of the
party; they need to be leading the conversation because they might be trusted
by rebelling sides.

Kiir needs
to promote democracy because democracy empowers people to have a voice and
become free. Moreover, it is what Kiir himself has fought for so many years.
Kiir can promote democracy by starting within SPLM party, informing his comrades
and the party of his leadership intentions, whether he will stand in the next
election or not. He also needs to
develop and empower institutions that support democracy.

Kiir needs
to treat all South Sudanese the same without favouring any person or tribe.
This will help in building trust, combatting corruption, tribalism and
nepotism. Kiir does not need to be seen favouring his blood, tribe or friend.
Justice should be delivered equally irrespective of the association to the President.

The revitalized
2018 peace agreement is a very good opportunity for President Kiir to
demonstrate leadership in shaping the future of South Sudan for the better. He
needs to genuinely hold the hands of all who have signed the peace agreement
and find ways to involve those who did not sign. Short of this, the South
Sudanese will be caught in muddy waters and so it will also be for Kiir’s
leadership and legacy.

In
conclusion, Kiir has his shortcomings when compared with Nelson Mandela, but
his legacy is largely positive. The two leaders have strong comparisons in
their period of struggle but unfortunately, this was not the case when Kiir
took office. Nelson Mandela demonstrated great virtue during his Presidency. He
set himself apart from Kiir focusing on unity of his people and leading the
process of healing and reconciliation, promoting democracy, keeping his party
united and successfully championing including many social justice initiatives
such as education, and women’s and children’s rights. On the other hand, Kiir’s leadership has been
soured by civil war, party division, corruption and insecurity with minimal social
development. Indeed, Kiir can still redeem himself. He can forgive and ask for
forgiveness, genuinely promote democracy and development, unite the SPLM party,
and treat all South Sudanese equally and fairly. The September 2018 agreement
is an opportunity for the President to bring the country together. Short of
these recommendations, Kiir’s legacy will fare negatively in comparison to
Nelson Mandela. Yet, he has the capacity
to dig deep and change the course of events. There remains hope yet for the South
Sudanese people.

The author, Biong Deng Biong, is an Executive Officer with Edmund Rice Services Ltd Australia. He currently resides in Melbourne, Australia and can be reached via his email: Biong Biong <biongdeng@icloud.com>

The opinion expressed
here is solely the view of the writer. The veracity of any claim made is the
responsibility of the author, not PaanLuel Wël Media (PW) website. If you want
to submit an opinion article, commentary or news analysis, please email it to
paanluel2011@gmail.com. PaanLuel Wël Media (PW) website do reserve the right to
edit or reject material before publication. Please include your full name, a
short biography, email address, city and the country you are writing from.